It's interesting to consider the implications of cellular automata in the way the universe works. Stephen Wolfram's magnum opus, A New Kind of Science, is an exploration of this idea. If we allow the possibility that the principles at work in cellular automata such as the Game of Life, are fundamental to the way the universe works, at allscales, then it's easy to see how the kind of complexity that exists all around us may have arisen much in the same way that the complex, organic-looking patterns emerge on the Game of Life. This is a neat concept because it means that all kinds of complexity can appear in reality even if the underlying processes are simple and predictable.

Another workable example is that we can imagine our own brains as vast cellular automata, with our neurons being individual cells, each obeying, deterministicly, easily understood and predictable rules. Yet, the ultimate behavior of our brains, as characterized by our minds, is complex and unpredictable. Perhaps this concept of emergent chaos can help us to demystify the link between mind and matter. We no longer need to believe that complex, unpredictable behavior must come from complex processes. And since we see neurons as being relatively simple (in that each neuron is predictable), maybe now we can see that just because neurons are simple, doesn't mean they can't support the kind of complexity that we understand directly as our own thoughts, moods, experience, and so on.

Also interesting to consider is that while cellular automata are unpredictable, they are deterministic, meaning that two identical grids with the same starting conditions will be identical to each other, every step of the way. Similarly, if our universe is ultimately deterministic (meaning, two universes with identical starting conditions would be identical to each other every step of the way), than it would still allow for the kind of unpredictable complexity we see in our day to day lives.

At any and every moment, countless amateur philosophers all over
the globe are debating this exact issue right now. Just in case anyone comes
across this node in their search for meaning here on e2, I will take a moment to
stamp the rubber-stamp opposition to this statement. However, I would like to
point out that I completely agree with mmmmbacon's basic premise. Stephen
Wolfram does so, as well. Unfortunately, his research in this field has not
produced the so-called "missing link" in the materialist-determinist's
vision of the universe: one brilliantly complex Conway's Game of
Life.

The missing link is the bridge between the simple structures capable of occurring
in rule-based computer-model simulations, such as Conway's Game of Life and the
higher levels of complexity we find in our everyday world. Put simply,
the little squiggling shapes populating Wolfram's computer models never evolved
into figures with higher complexity. The blinking cross, for example, will never
evolve into a more interesting figure, it will always and forever remain a
blinking cross. This type of environment does not seem to represent the chaotic
fullness and creativity of the world we are all used to. Wolfram himself admits
that most of his simulations, regardless of the time spent running through the
simulation, never reach a higher level of complexity. In fact, Wolfram admitted
that his results reached a certain level of chaos, and then hit a plateau: a
humming comfort level of complexity.

Hold on to your free-willed horses!

But wait! This may not be the end of the materialist-determinist's road, but
rather just the beginning. Perhaps, as the counter-counter argument goes (in
which I place my trust): Wolfram's models simply aren't large enough, and also
perhaps his rules governing these models are not complex enough. Perhaps if the
computer-model simulation were the
size of, say, the entire size of the universe itself, then maybe the data will
evolve into higher orders of complexity, such as rats, perfume, giant squids, and
cable bills.

Calling All QM Buffs: Please see this node for the quantum side to the philosophical
inquiry of determinism. I personally dislike the current rubber-stamp quantum
argument: that the nature of free will hides somewhere in the quantum buzz
engulfing the universe. To me, that's like picking up thirty-nine upside down cups
without finding the little red ball and then just assuming it is
going to be under the fortieth. Maybe there is no little red ball.

Oh, I guess I failed to answer WHAT IF the universe is like the Game of Life, and I must say I agree with ariel's assertion below: If the universe were a Game of Life, then it would look and feel exactly as it does today, with no difference!

Note the word UNIVERSAL in "universal machine". It doesn't refer to the famous Universal Studios Tour, it refers to an annoying property of those damned machines. Universal machines are computers, aka fools: What one fool can do, any other fool can also do. And what one universal machine can do, any other universal machine can also do. If the Universe can be modeled by the game of Life, then it can be modeled equally well by any other universal machine. So if we want to claim that the Universe IS a cellular automaton, we'd better have a much better argument to back us up than just that cellular automata are powerful enough to simulate the Universe. After all, so are polynomials (see the work of the Russian bloke with the hard name beginning with M, and the American linguist logician and philosopher with a girl's name, plus some other gals and guys).

It wouldn't make one bit of difference. It COULDN'T make one bit of difference. The whole point is to claim that at some unimaginably minute scale, our Universe is a cellular automaton. But -- since it's just a universal cellular automaton -- it could equally well have been any other universal machine with appropriate initial conditions, and we'd be none the wiser.

Well, for starters, every creature would have to choose when it was born/created whether it wanted to start college or start a career. It would be explained to them that "College offers more career and salary options, but it takes time - and it puts you in debt!" It would then proceed to spin a gigantic spinner and move forward with its life.

College

Immediately the creature would be hit with a $40,000 loan. They would then, upon landing on a career block, be able to choose out of three jobs with a matching salary. They would be able to choose jobs that had the mythical term "Degree required." They would then spend the rest of their life working to pay off their debts, buy houses, and reach retirement.

Career

For those creatures choosing to immediately go to a career, they would only get to choose one job, and the salary to match. They also would only be able to change jobs if they were fired, had a mid-life crisis, or attended night school. They would continue working to pay off debts, buy houses, and reach retirement.

Miscellaneous

Throughout the universe would be magical LIFE Tiles, Pay Day Spaces (no more waiting till Friday!), Getting Married spaces, etc. Planning for events would be a thing of the past. A creature's entire life would be slave to the spinner.

Conclusion

If the universe were like the Game of Life(c) every creature would either have a degree or a job. Humans would have to compete with ants, dolphins, turtles and piles of kittens to win. We would still not know if other life existed in the universe, but we could guarantee that if there was, they would be a slave to the spinner, just like us.

Brought to you by Saturday morning cereal and the "Life Board Game Rules" available at http://www.centralconnector.com/GAMES/life.html